It totally depends upon how you make the most of your money from your album. If you primarily make you $$ from recording and selling albums, then you don't want that kind of piracy going on because it comes right out of your pocket. Granted, not all of the people who pirate your material would have bought the album, but a certain number of them would have. So, that's money right out of your bottom line.

However, if you make most of your money from touring, it can actually help with the popularity of your concerts. Think Grateful Dead here. They had a section at each of their concerts where people were allowed to record the concert. Besides putting albums out, there was a multitude of "bootleg" material from concerts that fans traded back and forth. The Dead encouraged it and they always had turn away crowds at their concerts. Heck, they had lotteries to buy the tickets! Now they are a little unusual but it makes a good point about getting your music out to get seats filled in your concert. I remember my brother sending in checks under each of his six siblings names to increase his chances of getting a ticket.

Also, once Led Zeppelin started taking a percentage of the sales besides a guaranteed minimum, they started making a LOT more money from their tours than they did their recordings. Same for the Who and the Stones. In the 60's, most of the $$ came from the recordings. In the 70's that changed to more $$ being made from the tours as long as the artists toured. Most contracts at the time specified that they had to tour to support their new album(s).

Very good points, sir! Thank you. I definitely know that the climate for musicians has changed since I started playing........ 30 years ago. (Wow! 30 years?! I just had that realization as I typed that line. )

When I was on Black Lotus Records in 2006, there was a lot of talk about how piracy was going to kill the industry, but now it just seems rampant.

I'm guessing the overall model for making money in music has to evolve. I told my guys yesterday that instead of dumping a few thousand into more CDs, as we self released because we didn't care for the label offers, we should invest in the stage show so that we pack the house at every show. We can then sell more shirts and other mercy.

DNA 1350 and 410-4: Why settle for really good tone when you can have the best?

Yes, I think you're right about investing in the stage show for a presence that will get and keep people talking. But keep in mind you still want to make sure your music gets out there to create the demand. I think it's a "bit of everything" instead of just one or the other.

Exactly. Making money on the music, itself, seems hit and miss, but it is necessary to have knew music to move forward. It's no wonder so many people are self producing these days and often getting high quality sound, but lacking the input and magic of a producer's outside ear. They get off cheaper by not paying someone else, since the return may not be there.

DNA 1350 and 410-4: Why settle for really good tone when you can have the best?

And one of the major keys, before the internet, was getting distribution. That was why a recording contract was so necessary back in the day - they had the distribution network. I played with a group in the 70's whose girl singer had a #1 Country Hit when she was 16 under the name "Holly Page." But the recording company was fly-by-night, took the money from the initial sales and left. So even then you had to be careful to use an established label.

With the internet now, you can personally get the music to anyone with a computer. But promoting it and getting it out to a large audience without air-play is still a trick.

And your spot on about getting a good producer with a lot of experience under his belt. It's amazing the ways they will come up with to make your music sound better.